Site icon swarb.co.uk

Judd v Sun Newspapers: 1930

(Australia) The plaintiff was put in the box as a witness but not asked any questions by his counsel, nor did he give any evidence in chief; he was, however, cross-examined by counsel for the defendants, at great length, not only in regard to matters material to the facts alleged in the article complained of, but also as to his use of violent, abusive, and insulting language in regard to other persons entirely distinct from matters at issue between the parties.
Held: Harvey C.J. ‘Damages which a jury may award a plaintiff may possibly be increased by the outrageous nature of the language in which the libel is couched, or lessened by the provocative conduct or language of the plaintiff, just as damages may be aggravated by the way in which the defendant has conducted his case in the Court. In my humble judgment, those elements of damage are hard to justify on principle, but have been sanctioned by usage, and as an indulgence to what is called the practical common sense of juries.’ and (Halse Rogers J) ‘Where the language complained of in the action has been provoked by the language of the plaintiff, and relates to the same subject matter, there is sound reason for admitting evidence of all the circumstances in which the libel was published, and for inviting the jury to consider the conduct of the plaintiff on the question of damages’

Judges:

Harvey C.J, Halse Rogers J

Citations:

[1930] 30 State Reports New South Wales

Citing:

DoubtedKelly v Sherlock 1866
The defendant had claimed that the plaintiff preached a sermon against the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain to the Liverpool borough gaol, and another sermon reflecting in strong terms on the conduct of the town council of Liverpool electing . .

Cited by:

CitedGodfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited
The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Defamation

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.185261

Exit mobile version